Menu

2023 The Best Electric Vehicle Tires VS UHP Tires

Jonathan Benson
Data analyzed and reviewed by Jonathan Benson
8 min read Updated
Contents
  1. Introduction
  2. Wet
  3. Dry
  4. Environment
  5. Results
  6. Continental SportContact 7
  7. Continental Premium Contact 6
  8. Michelin e.Primacy
  9. Falken e.Ziex
  10. Bridgestone Potenza Sport
  11. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV
  12. Falken Azenis FK520
  13. Maxxis Victra Sport VS5 SUV
  14. Pirelli Scorpion Elect
  15. GT Radial SportActive 2 SUV

It's not often I'm completely shocked by a tire test, but this years AMS EV tire vs normal tire test has me stumped.

Why? Let me run a few things past you. The Michelin e.Primacy was best in wet braking, beating both the Continental SportContact 7 and Bridgestone Potenza Sport, which usually ace that test. The Michelin e.Primacy also beat the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV overall, which has won every other test it's featured in, and Continental won the test twice!

The concept for the test seems relatively straightforward - get a bunch of the best performance tires on the market and test them against the newest ultra low rolling resistance / EV tires, the Michelin e.Primacy, the Falken eZiex and the Pirelli Scorpion Elect.

Things get l little more complicated as AMS also included the Kia EV6 OE version of the Continental PremiumContact 6, and the acoustic foam version of the Michelin Pilot Sport SUV. And they used two test vehicles, an EV Kia EV6 and a diesel Kia Sorento. Quite which did what escapes me, so if you want to know you should go check out the full AMS test on their website or magazine.

Test Publication:
Auto Motor Und Sport
255/45 R20 10 tires 4 categories
Test Publication:
Auto Motor Und Sport
Read the original test at Auto Motor Und Sport →
Test Size: 255/45 R20
Tires Tested: 10 tires
Test Categories:
4 categories (11 tests)
Similar Tests
Auto Motor Und Sport is not affiliated with, and does not endorse, Tire Reviews. This is independent editorial coverage of their published test.

Wet

Wet braking is the test that's raised the most eyebrows in the industry. Traditionally the wet performance of a tire is an opposing requirement of rolling resistance / energy use, highlighted by the fact the the Michelin e.Primacy has never had a good wet braking result against its rivals. Don't believe me? Check out the other tests linked from here.

In this test, the e.Primacy was not only best of the other EV tires, it was best of all the tires! Perhaps it was something to do with the rather large 255/45 R20 tire size tested, or perhaps it was due to a very high grip wet braking surface (look at the distances!) but the data had the e.Primacy at the top, and the new Falken eZiex in second, both ahead of their much higher rolling resistance counter parts, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV and Falken Azenis FK520.

Wet Braking

Wet braking in meters (relative index, 100 = best in test)
  1. Michelin e.Primacy
    100 %
  2. Falken e.Ziex
    100 %
  3. Falken Azenis FK520
    99 %
  4. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV
    98 %
  5. Continental SportContact 7
    98 %
  6. Pirelli Scorpion Elect
    97 %
  7. Continental Premium Contact 6
    97 %
  8. Maxxis Victra Sport VS5 SUV
    96 %
  9. Bridgestone Potenza Sport
    92 %
  10. GT Radial SportActive 2 SUV
    89 %

Fortunately wet handling had the tires in a more expected order, with the ultra low rolling resistance tires struggling to get the Kia around the lap compared to the wet master, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport.

Wet Handling

Wet Handling Average Speed (relative index, 100 = best in test)
  1. Bridgestone Potenza Sport
    100 %
  2. Maxxis Victra Sport VS5 SUV
    98 %
  3. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV
    98 %
  4. Continental SportContact 7
    98 %
  5. Continental Premium Contact 6
    97 %
  6. GT Radial SportActive 2 SUV
    97 %
  7. Michelin e.Primacy
    97 %
  8. Falken Azenis FK520
    96 %
  9. Falken e.Ziex
    96 %
  10. Pirelli Scorpion Elect
    95 %

The ultra low rolling resistance tires were also amongst the worst in the aquaplaning tests, which is often a feature of the shallower starting tread depth and less water channels of tires designed to save energy.

Straight Aqua

Float Speed in Km/H (relative index, 100 = best in test)
  1. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV
    100 %
  2. Maxxis Victra Sport VS5 SUV
    99 %
  3. Continental SportContact 7
    99 %
  4. GT Radial SportActive 2 SUV
    99 %
  5. Pirelli Scorpion Elect
    99 %
  6. Falken Azenis FK520
    99 %
  7. Bridgestone Potenza Sport
    98 %
  8. Continental Premium Contact 6
    98 %
  9. Michelin e.Primacy
    98 %
  10. Falken e.Ziex
    97 %

Dry

Dry braking had both the Continental products at the front, with four tires tied for fourth place!

Dry Braking

Dry braking in meters (relative index, 100 = best in test)
  1. Continental Premium Contact 6
    100 %
  2. Continental SportContact 7
    100 %
  3. Falken e.Ziex
    99 %
  4. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV
    98 %
  5. Michelin e.Primacy
    98 %
  6. Bridgestone Potenza Sport
    98 %
  7. Falken Azenis FK520
    98 %
  8. Maxxis Victra Sport VS5 SUV
    96 %
  9. GT Radial SportActive 2 SUV
    95 %
  10. Pirelli Scorpion Elect
    93 %

The sport-bias UHP tires led the way in the dry handling laps, with the Continental SportContact 7 having an impressive margin.

Dry Handling

Dry Handling Average Speed (relative index, 100 = best in test)
  1. Continental SportContact 7
    100 %
  2. Bridgestone Potenza Sport
    99 %
  3. Falken Azenis FK520
    99 %
  4. Falken e.Ziex
    98 %
  5. Continental Premium Contact 6
    98 %
  6. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV
    98 %
  7. Maxxis Victra Sport VS5 SUV
    98 %
  8. GT Radial SportActive 2 SUV
    97 %
  9. Michelin e.Primacy
    97 %
  10. Pirelli Scorpion Elect
    97 %

Environment

The magazine tested the rolling resistance of the tires, which is a machine test, and the energy consumption in the real world using the Kia EV6.

The EV tires led the real world test, with the Falken Azenis FK520 tying with the eZiex on the drum test. As we've seen before, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport isn't the tire to buy if you care about your energy use!

Rolling Resistance

Rolling resistance in kg t (relative index, 100 = best in test)
  1. Falken e.Ziex
    100 %
  2. Michelin e.Primacy
    97 %
  3. Pirelli Scorpion Elect
    89 %
  4. Continental SportContact 7
    79 %
  5. Continental Premium Contact 6
    77 %
  6. Falken Azenis FK520
    75 %
  7. GT Radial SportActive 2 SUV
    74 %
  8. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV
    71 %
  9. Maxxis Victra Sport VS5 SUV
    65 %
  10. Bridgestone Potenza Sport
    63 %

Energy Consumption

Energy consumption in kW hours per 100 km (relative index, 100 = best in test)
  1. Pirelli Scorpion Elect
    100 %
  2. Falken e.Ziex
    100 %
  3. Michelin e.Primacy
    99 %
  4. GT Radial SportActive 2 SUV
    90 %
  5. Falken Azenis FK520
    90 %
  6. Continental Premium Contact 6
    88 %
  7. Continental SportContact 7
    88 %
  8. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV
    86 %
  9. Maxxis Victra Sport VS5 SUV
    86 %
  10. Bridgestone Potenza Sport
    82 %

The three EV tires also had the lowest external passby noise, another feature of the low tread depth, BUT the testers did comment that the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV with acoustic foam was noticeably quieter in the cabin meaning the sound deadening foam applied to the inside of the tire was doing its job well.

Noise

External noise in dB (relative index, 100 = best in test)
  1. Michelin e.Primacy
    100 %
  2. Pirelli Scorpion Elect
    100 %
  3. Falken e.Ziex
    100 %
  4. Continental Premium Contact 6
    100 %
  5. Maxxis Victra Sport VS5 SUV
    99 %
  6. GT Radial SportActive 2 SUV
    99 %
  7. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV
    98 %
  8. Continental SportContact 7
    98 %
  9. Falken Azenis FK520
    98 %
  10. Bridgestone Potenza Sport
    98 %

There was quite a range in tire prices, with Michelin being the two most expensive products in the test.

Price

Price in local currency (relative index, 100 = best in test)
  1. Maxxis Victra Sport VS5 SUV
    100 %
  2. GT Radial SportActive 2 SUV
    89 %
  3. Continental Premium Contact 6
    83 %
  4. Falken Azenis FK520
    82 %
  5. Falken e.Ziex
    70 %
  6. Continental SportContact 7
    62 %
  7. Bridgestone Potenza Sport
    58 %
  8. Pirelli Scorpion Elect
    57 %
  9. Michelin e.Primacy
    48 %
  10. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV
    44 %

Results

Please note: Continental claim the SportContact 7 should have over 7mm of tread depth, but in the interest of fairness, I've databased what was listed in the magazine. Based on my own measurements in a different tire size of the SC7, it seems most likely that the magazine is incorrect.

1st

Continental SportContact 7

255/45 R20 105Y
Continental SportContact 7
  • EU Label: C/A/73
  • Weight: 12.44 kgs
  • Tread: 5.87 mm
Test # %
Dry Braking 1st 100%
Dry Handling 1st 100%
Test # %
Wet Braking 4th 98.35%
Wet Handling 4th 97.67%
Wet Circle 2nd 97.21%
Straight Aqua 2nd 99.4%
Curved Aquaplaning 3rd 96.28%
Test # %
Noise 7th 98.49%
Test # %
Price 6th 62.11%
Rolling Resistance 4th 79.17%
Energy Consumption 6th 88%
2nd

Continental Premium Contact 6

255/45 R20 101Y
Continental Premium Contact 6
  • EU Label: B/A/72
  • Weight: 13.42 kgs
  • Tread: 6.33 mm
Test # %
Dry Braking 1st 100%
Dry Handling 5th 97.93%
Test # %
Wet Braking 7th 96.76%
Wet Handling 5th 96.9%
Wet Circle 5th 95.65%
Straight Aqua 8th 97.61%
Curved Aquaplaning 8th 87.53%
Test # %
Noise 4th 99.72%
Test # %
Price 3rd 83.1%
Rolling Resistance 5th 77.03%
Energy Consumption 6th 88%
3rd

Michelin e.Primacy

255/45 R20 101V
Michelin e.Primacy
  • EU Label: A/A/70
  • Weight: 11.89 kgs
  • Tread: 6.3 mm
Test # %
Dry Braking 4th 97.71%
Dry Handling 9th 97.39%
Test # %
Wet Braking 1st 100%
Wet Handling 7th 96.51%
Wet Circle 7th 94.31%
Straight Aqua 8th 97.61%
Curved Aquaplaning 9th 84.03%
Test # %
Noise 1st 100%
Test # %
Price 9th 47.71%
Rolling Resistance 2nd 96.61%
Energy Consumption 3rd 98.51%
4th

Falken e.Ziex

255/45 R20 105V
Falken e.Ziex
  • EU Label: A/A/72
  • Weight: 11.6 kgs
  • Tread: 6.12 mm
Test # %
Dry Braking 3rd 99.42%
Dry Handling 4th 98.26%
Test # %
Wet Braking 2nd 99.58%
Wet Handling 9th 95.74%
Wet Circle 9th 93.76%
Straight Aqua 10th 97.02%
Curved Aquaplaning 10th 78.77%
Test # %
Noise 1st 100%
Test # %
Price 5th 70.24%
Rolling Resistance 1st 100%
Energy Consumption 1st 100%
5th

Bridgestone Potenza Sport

255/45 R20 105Y
Bridgestone Potenza Sport
  • EU Label: C/A/72
  • Weight: 13.48 kgs
  • Tread: 6.36 mm
Test # %
Dry Braking 4th 97.71%
Dry Handling 2nd 98.91%
Test # %
Wet Braking 9th 91.92%
Wet Handling 1st 100%
Wet Circle 1st 100%
Straight Aqua 7th 98.09%
Curved Aquaplaning 1st 100%
Test # %
Noise 10th 97.82%
Test # %
Price 7th 58.22%
Rolling Resistance 10th 62.64%
Energy Consumption 10th 81.99%
6th

Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV

255/45 R20 105Y
Michelin Pilot Sport 4 SUV
  • EU Label: C/A/72
  • Weight: 14.1 kgs
  • Tread: 7.27 mm
Test # %
Dry Braking 4th 97.71%
Dry Handling 6th 97.82%
Test # %
Wet Braking 4th 98.35%
Wet Handling 3rd 97.87%
Wet Circle 3rd 96.88%
Straight Aqua 1st 100%
Curved Aquaplaning 2nd 97.7%
Test # %
Noise 7th 98.49%
Test # %
Price 10th 44.25%
Rolling Resistance 8th 71.25%
Energy Consumption 8th 86.27%
7th

Falken Azenis FK520

255/45 R20 105Y
Falken Azenis FK520
  • EU Label: C/A/70
  • Weight: 13.54 kgs
  • Tread: 7.01 mm
Test # %
Dry Braking 4th 97.71%
Dry Handling 3rd 98.8%
Test # %
Wet Braking 3rd 98.76%
Wet Handling 8th 96.12%
Wet Circle 6th 94.98%
Straight Aqua 6th 98.57%
Curved Aquaplaning 7th 88.18%
Test # %
Noise 9th 97.96%
Test # %
Price 4th 81.94%
Rolling Resistance 6th 75%
Energy Consumption 5th 89.8%
8th

Maxxis Victra Sport VS5 SUV

255/45 R20 105Y
Maxxis Victra Sport VS5 SUV
  • EU Label: C/A/71
  • Weight: 13.82 kgs
  • Tread: 7.27 mm
Test # %
Dry Braking 8th 96.06%
Dry Handling 6th 97.82%
Test # %
Wet Braking 8th 95.6%
Wet Handling 2nd 98.45%
Wet Circle 3rd 96.88%
Straight Aqua 2nd 99.4%
Curved Aquaplaning 5th 92.45%
Test # %
Noise 5th 98.63%
Test # %
Price 1st 100%
Rolling Resistance 9th 64.77%
Energy Consumption 8th 86.27%
9th

Pirelli Scorpion Elect

255/45 R20 105Y
Pirelli Scorpion Elect
  • EU Label: A/A/70
  • Weight: 12.73 kgs
  • Tread: 7.2 mm
Test # %
Dry Braking 10th 93.17%
Dry Handling 10th 96.63%
Test # %
Wet Braking 6th 97.15%
Wet Handling 10th 95.16%
Wet Circle 10th 93.42%
Straight Aqua 4th 99.28%
Curved Aquaplaning 6th 88.51%
Test # %
Noise 1st 100%
Test # %
Price 8th 57.47%
Rolling Resistance 3rd 89.06%
Energy Consumption 1st 100%
10th

GT Radial SportActive 2 SUV

255/45 R20 105W
GT Radial SportActive 2 SUV
  • EU Label: B/A/70
  • Weight: 13.05 kgs
  • Tread: 7.67 mm
Test # %
Dry Braking 9th 95.25%
Dry Handling 8th 97.5%
Test # %
Wet Braking 10th 88.85%
Wet Handling 6th 96.71%
Wet Circle 8th 94.09%
Straight Aqua 4th 99.28%
Curved Aquaplaning 4th 95.95%
Test # %
Noise 5th 98.63%
Test # %
Price 2nd 89.39%
Rolling Resistance 7th 74.03%
Energy Consumption 4th 90.41%

Discussion

16 comments
  1. HibikiTaisuna archived

    Now I am wondering if I should get the e.Primacy as a dedicated summer tire for my 500e and replace the Falken AS210 All Season Tire. Wouldn’t this result in 20-30% more mileage per charge? This would be a huge difference. How would this compare to a more efficient all season tire like the Continental All Season Contact 2 or the excellent Michelin?

    #9448
    1. TireReviews HibikiTaisuna archived

      On an EV a tire accounts for approx 25% of rolling resistance, though some of that comes from the aero of the tire profile that we don't test on our machines. 20-30% more range per charge seems optimistic but you should notice an increase.

      #9454
  2. PAVEL ALBL archived

    Good day,

    I need advice on suitable tires for sporty driving on the edge, especially on dry alpine roads. I know there isn't much to choose from in my size 215/45 R16. I am considering the Hankook Prime 3 or Prime 4. Can you please advise which tire is better for my driving style?
    Thank you for answer. Sincerely, Albl

    #8807
    1. TireReviews PAVEL ALBL archived

      I've just looked through the list here https://www.tyrereviews.com... and there's not many great options, apart from the AD08RS but that might be a bit extreme!

      I do also know a lot of the Clio boys love the Pilot Sport 3 for sporty driving.

      #8808
      1. PAVEL ALBL TireReviews archived

        Thanks for the answer, I was thinking about the AD08RS, but they say it is not suitable for use at temperatures below 7 degrees and in the Alps it is often cold in the morning. Also, according to the reviews, it is much worse than the previous model AD08R. If only PS 4 was made in my size, or PS 5, so I would decide easily. I would also like to ask you, if I decide to try Hankook, should I choose Prime 3 or 4. Thank you for your answer and have a nice day. Albl

        #8811
        1. TireReviews PAVEL ALBL archived

          I really couldn't tell you from experience, while I've driven on both tires it was years apart.

          My GUESS would be test the 3. The Prime 4 is the better tire overall, but as with all modern tires, the quest for rolling resistance and comfort improvements means handling can suffer.

          #8812
          1. PAVEL ALBL TireReviews archived

            Thank you, I will try Prime 3 and then Pilot sport 3. Regards Albl

            #8813
  3. Engineer_Andy archived

    Those prices - ouch! I just looked at (just for comparison - used on similar sized [but not wieght - EVs are much heavier] cars) the all-season test and the most expensive tire in that group, the Michelin CC2 was 104.99, whereas the cheapest tire here is 177, most being between 200-300 and both Michelins well over 350!

    No wonder EV ownership (even on 'standard' sized cars like this) is for the well-off. Not sure what 'local currency' is used for both (hopefully the same, otherwise you can't compare them), but if they were either £, $ or Euros (all within 20% of one-another in worth), that is a horrendous price to pay for just one tire.

    For comparison, albeit in 2018, my 195/65 R15H Michelin CC+ tires cost about £55 each (today the cost for the CC2 [better product] is about £75, including 'pandemic' era inflation) shod on a similar sized car and which probably handles nearly as well (or as well as) the KIA test vehicle. Not as quick, but you can only do up to the speed limit of 70 (or whatever it is locally)!

    #8771
      1. Engineer_Andy Jacopo archived

        The ones in the EV test were admitedly large, at 255/45 R20 vs the all-season test ones at 225/45 R17 vs my car's at 195/65 R15, but the all-important factor is the first group were tested on a KIA EV6, the second on a current VW Golf and mine are fitted to a (yes, 17yo) Mazda3 saloon, cars all similar in size and passenger capacity. Admitedly the EV6 has the biggest boot at 480L, mine is 420L and the Golf at 380L, but that's not too dissimilar overall, apart from the 0-60 performance and mpg. They all take 5 people and can only drive at or below the UK speed limit.

        My issue was that cars nowadays, and especially EVs, cost a fortune not just to buy but to run (replacement tires will cost [by these metrics] nearly 7x that of my current ones and won't last as long as they are lower profile), partly perhaps because of extra safety features, but those EV tires presumably have to be that large because they need to support all that extra weight of the car (batteries), which still don't get you the same average range as my 17yo petrol Mazda.

        As such, and because governments are legislating ICE cars out of existence, no-one apart from the very wealthy can afford to get a new car. Even if they were more affordable, many of us live in flats or terraced houses, which means we cannot charge an EV overnight/at weekends at home, and would have to rely on the poor / time-consuming 'public' chargers, and that's if we can afford to buy the car in the first place, which we can't.

        #8775
        1. Jacopo Engineer_Andy archived

          You raise a lot of points.
          First, I'd argue the difference going from 225/45R17 to 255/45R20 is significant. The difference between 255/45R20 and 195/65R15 is huge. I agree that a common, high profile 16/17inch tire across many common passenger cars would be an intelligent move in the interest of reducing waste and expenses. Tire cost is due to intended application, production volume, and finally size. I am happy every time I can fit 185/65R15 or 205/55R16 to a daily. I think R17 offers a good compromise between cost, performance, and looks.
          A similar argument can be made about the cars you described.

          As per your second point, tires are the best they have ever been and the mileage they can be run is so high that tire cost is minimal in car ownership. I can see people paying more on car wash than tires. Fuel of course being one of the major costs. You can drive any EV sensibly and tires should last just about the same distance per weight class. Granted ev are generally heavier, but people don't complain about tire wear on SUV so it is not a concern to the general public, it seems.
          I would add that often times, the unaware will go to the dealership for a tire change. As an anecdote, a friend of mine payed around 6-700 euros on her Audi A1 tire change. You can hardly buy smaller car than that. Once again, tire size and vehicle have little to do with cost when it comes to the mainstream user.
          I would also point out that why everyone wants their cake and eat it too, if EVs are to be considered the green alternative then one should expect there is a compromise. Personally I don't think the focus should be on extending the range at the expense of price and the environment as the main goal of the EV should be to power emissions. I disagree with the over-engineering that's taking place, primarily to make the EV into a cool status symbol, and to please the masses all while removing the element of range anxiety. I dailied a Zoe, living in flat in Edinburgh and the price to pay was time, time I would spend on longer journeys. What I saved was a lot of petrol, and hopefully the Zoe was just about right sized for ending up green in the long run (which is not the case with the leased hydrogen cars that get binned after a couple of years).

          I will conclude by saying thay why I think small-sized EV are smarter, I also think that other sources of CO2 emission should be tackled well before the passenger car. Heating (again, looking at you single glazed Scotland), agriculture, industry, shipping. I see little benefit in forcing the bill on people, sell EVs, and convincing them they saved the planet. They just bought a new car. Small electric run-around cars are great 90% of the time as far as city use goes. At least in Europe. A tesla model S is extra weight most of the time, which defies the purpose in the first place.

          Tire pollution (pm) beats tailpipe pollution these days.. perhaps instead of enforcing Euro 7, they should start looking at tires.
          A while back it was direct injection petrol engines which weren't being properly assessed. Today it's tires and EV.
          Got carried away, long rant.

          #8779
          1. Engineer_Andy Jacopo archived

            The problem is that the 'solutions' being forced upon us are a 'one-size fits all' approach. I live in a small town in the countryisde in England, where a car is essential, and I live in a flat, where EV charging is impossible at the moment and will likely not be for decades to due logistical and cost issues. I agree that small cars are a sensible option for the city-dweller or people just doing a shortish commute to other urban areas (I used to own a Nissan Micra before my current Mazda3), but I needed a larger car for work purposes and that rode the God-awful roads better than a small car (even on 60 profile tires as my Micra was shod on).

            I would gladly buy a smaller car next time out, but none can be shod on reasonable tires and all cost 2x and more than I paid for my car. Soon, none will be ICE and I'll be expected to pay £30k for an EV one, and then hire a bigger car when I need more capacity. I deliberately use my car sparingly (walk a lot, even for grocery shopping), so it has a relatively small carbon footprint or tire-based pollution. It certainly helps being educated as an engineer as well - you know the truths / realities that many scientists and politicians / journalists ignore (often deliberately) or miss.

            The problem with many EVs as I see it is that most are big, heavy cars or tiny ones, and both very expensive to buy /lease for what use they can provide. That many come shod on bling huge alloys and (often) low profile tires just makes the ride quality worse, lifespan a lot shorter and chance of serious damage to both from kerbing/potholes/speed humps etc. There's just no way in my rural town and living in a flat that I could viably run and EV (of any size), given the lack of nearby / secure / fast charging points and no way of getting them on my housing development, even though that's only 20 or so years old - there's not the room or the money.

            I agree on the heating side (my engineering speciality is mechanical building services, incl. heating systems), though our stupid governments (often who are in thrall to / in the pocket of the globalists and WEF as well as ill-informed activists) insist on ill-thought-out, unworkable laws / schemes such as heat pumps etc when, as you say, most of the UK's building stock is incapable of taking such tech because they are very old and either not insulated at all (and many cannot be) or not enough to be able take advantage of the lower system temperatures of heat pumps. And they want us all to bankrupt and starve ourselves through paying for this new tech and putting up the cost of agriculture to pretend to 'save the planet', when in reality they are just saving themselves (the rich and powerful) at everyone else's expense.

            The problem is that the proverbial 'great and good' are just allowed by the normies to do as they please. Until we fight back to take control via the ballot box, rather like the Ducth and their farmers party is now doing, nobody with sensible policies that provide workable solutions to genuine problems will take control as needed. Sadly, common sense is in short supply these days.

            (you encouraged me to rant myself!)

            #8780
            1. Jacopo Engineer_Andy archived

              I agree that EVs are not the answer for everyone. In fact, at the moment they are mostly the answer for the city dwellers. It makes a lot of sense for the few that can benefit from the highly urbanized and well-served areas. I had a job where I could recharge daily, that said I only had to do so only weekly.
              I don't it's right to impose the switch for reasons like the ones you pointed out.

              I would probably stick to an old hatchback with uprated suspensions goot AT tires if I was in a country setting. My next shitbox is in fact a Focus mk I. For the new, I always liked the Crosstrek, wasn't for the engine.

              As per the houses or flats, I can't believe German cars have double glazed mirrors and British houses often are single glazed. Especially incomprehensible up north where the cold is palpable. I am told old "authentic" windows can't be changed because of some plan, I think it's horses**t.

              Rant away, I don't mind :)

              #8784
              1. Engineer_Andy Jacopo archived

                Our 'British way' is sometimes undertsndable - but only up to a point. For example, properly 'old' houses and flats (including some that are converted from large stately homes or suchlike) are excellent examples of the architecture of their time and good looking when well-maintained. Many of them - 17th Century cottages, art-deco flats, etc obviously have single-glazed windows but the entire property (including the windows) are often covered by 'listed building status' and cannot be materially altered, including adding double glazing.

                Some lower classes of listed status might be able to have secondary glazing (not as good as double but better than single alone), but almost none will be able to install any sort of insulation for the reason I gave before. We have a LOT of those sort of buildings, the former in the countryside (mainly villages and small towns like mine), the latter mainly in large, long-established towns and cities.

                The big problem is that many terrible 1920s - 1970s homes are thermally very poor (no cavity insulation) but if you install double glazing, they sweat like mad and need to be dehumidified, which requires electricity-hungry equipment similar to A/C units. My parents have one in their 1960s built house that was only needed after they had the windows upgraded in the 1980s. Most of these properties have cavity walls, but no insulation, and it's not cheap to have it installed and there's little to no tax/government incentives to do so, plus it makes the 'sweating problem' worse. As we saw with the Grenfell fire disaster, externally cladding buildings, especially flats, isn't the cheap and easy solution certain 'experts' thought it was.

                The daft thing is that most people are far more willing to spend big on a car they don't need (or can afford - because they pay monthly via a loan / PCP / leasing deal) when they could save themselves a fortune over the longer term by helping to improve their home's thermal properties, including the heating and ventilation systems. Local authorities and government let bad new build housing developments go ahead that are in no way future-proofed / easy to maintain or upgrade (it can be done without much extra expense) and mostly VERY poorly built.

                My own flat block (built only 20 years ago) had issues where part of the communal areas were not insulated at all (they should've been) and was so buildly built the water was getting in and cuasing a lot of damage. House warranties are not worth the paper they're written on - at least with cars, you have SOME chance in recompense because problems are normally quite obvious and happen more quickly.

                With cars, I finding that its often best to stick with a car you know does the job well, even if it's a bit older, as long as it's reliable and not falling to bits. Like with replacing an older heating boiler, you'll likely never recoup the cost of purchasing a new one via its greater efficiency in operation, unless you use a heck of a lot. I agree that EVs should just be a useful option for the urban dweller amongst many - those on the outer edge of a big city may find that an ICE car is far better because they need to use it to drive further and more often, especially people living in flats.

                In such areas, public transport is far more sparse than in city centres because the areas covered are much larger. Less people have driveways and thus EVs aren't always a useful option, at least unless and until vandal-proof, reliable charging points are installed on every lamp-post. Out in the sticks, both are a waste of time unless you are very well off and have the space/money at home for a decent EV charger. Most UK workplaces have far less car parking spaces than staff who drive to work, often with no space or a landlord willing / able to install charging points.

                The only employers who do tend to be large coprorates who can afford to virtue-signal and have the facilities. Most other (smaller size firms) don't. Even the largest employer in my town - with a very large site and probably over 1000 staff have only about a total of 4-5 EV charging points in their car parks (only for them). The council has one installed next to the town hall (a slow 7.5kWh charger) and there's two at the local supermarket (which has about 300- 500 spaces total). None of the filling stations in and around the town has an EV charger yet. Thus unless you have one at home, then EVs are a non-starter. Politicians either don't get that or don't care.

                #8787
    1. TireReviews Engineer_Andy archived

      Don't forget to compare apples to apples, this test was on a rather large size compared to most!

      #8773
      1. Engineer_Andy TireReviews archived

        Oh I wasn't comparing them directly, more for Jacopo illustrating that the more modern a car is, the more expensive its tires (and other components) are to replace. £400 a tire would cost me more than my car is worth! the same would go for example, replacing a front (LED) light cluster, etc. There's something to be said for the K.I.S.S. principle - simple is often cheap, and can also be long lasting, which saves even more money and often pollutes less.

        #8781
Rate your tires